In message
<CAD6AjGThTpvH5HgGc8RbedOcJKZ=_JLR=2t7yAAJWKSS1cKNSg(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
, Cameron Byrne writes:
On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, "Mark Andrews" <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
In message <968F0B1C-D082-4A59-8213-FD58C74AF89D(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>,
Ted Lemon
writes
:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug"
or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors
saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
if it becomes historic.
You also have content owners that say no aaaa while 6to4 is tanking
reliability stats.
You have Google Chrome and Firefox already implementing HE. You
have new address selection rules out there. You have a dramatic
decrease in 6to4 traffic already as a result. You have improved
throughput for the 80% of machines for which 6to4 does work.
We are yet to see the effects of Mac OS Lion both the 6to4 side
and the HE side.
Pick your battles.
Cb
This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use
6to4v=
2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf